John W. Loftus, carpet cleaner and pool player from Angola, Indiana,
tries to impress us with the credentials noted at The John W. Loftus Basement
of Credentials.And yet, if he was a
Christian, a “strong apologist” and a former minister as he claims, how can he
be so ignorant of the Christian faith?

From Minister to
Honest Doubter. “What if I’m Wrong?” pp. 171-173.

Am I to be blamed because I couldn’t understand traditional Christianity? I tried with everything in me. I even
spent several years earning three master’s degrees and studies in a Ph.D.
program to figure my faith out.

Because I’m pretty sure most all of us are wrong about
some crucial religious issues. I’m
probably wrong too.

If I am wrong about
anything I have written in this book, then I am wrong. And I probably am
wrong about some things, and maybe about many things. I know this.

From Minister to
Honest Doubter, p. 5.

One major reason why I have become an honest doubter is
because even though I am above average as a thinker I could not answer the
questions that I was encountering myself, so I became a doubter precisely
because that’s where the unanswerable
questions led me.I couldn’t answer them, and I’m above
average, so those who are below average should be warned.

Strange, isn’t it, that while Loftus claims to be an “above
average” thinker, that his “unanswerable questions” have been answered.Is he
not intelligent enough to ascertain those answers?

Online resources are available.Various apologetics websites exist to tackle the tough questions.Tekton Apologetics Ministries.A Christian Thinktank.The John Ankerberg Theological
Institute.Equip.org.So the
matter is not whether the questions are unanswerable, because they are.Rather, is the skeptic willing to search for
those answers, and examine the evidence with an impartial and open mind and
heart, with the same standards of evaluating any other ancient document?

Simon Greenleaf of the Harvard School of Law states, in Testimony of the Evangelists, “In
examining the evidence of the Christian religion, it is essential to the
discovery of truth that we bring to the investigation a mind freed, as far
as possible, from existing prejudice, and open to conviction. There
should be a readiness, on our part, to investigate with candor to follow the
truth wherever it may lead us, and to submit, without reserve or objection, to
all the teachings of this religion, if it be found to be of divine origin.

“... In requiring this candor and simplicity of mind in
those who would investigate the truth of our religion, Christianity demands
nothing more than is readily conceded to every branch of human science. All
these have their data, and their axioms; and Christianity, too, has her first
principles, the admission of which is essential to any real progress in
knowledge.

“... All Christianity asks of men on this subject, is that
they would be consistent with themselves; that they would treat the evidence of
other things;; and that they would try and judge its actors and witnesses, as
they deal with their fellow men, when testifying to human affairs and actions,
in human tribunals. Let the the witnesses be compared with
themselves, with each other, and with surrounding facts and circumstances; and
let their testimony be sifted, as if were given in a court of justice, on the
side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous
cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be
an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth.”

Was Loftus willing to investigate in those terms?Apparently not.For he has said,

Dr. John Ankerberg.“What
Can You Say About Jesus to Your Non-Christian Friends? - Part 1”
If you are a Christian, would you like to know how to answer the tough
questions your friends are asking about God? Do you know what to say if someone
asks you to show them who Jesus really is? Do you know what Jesus claimed about
Himself? Do you know where and how Jesus says He can change a person’s life? In
this series of articles, Dr. Ankerberg will lay out the evidence you can use to
witness to your friends. HTMLPDF

Dr. John Ankerberg.“What Can You Say About Jesus to Your
Non-Christian Friends? - Part 2”
Critics made several assumptions about the Bible: 1) critics assume that
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John really didn’t write the books that bear their
names; 2) they assume that the people who wrote the book were not eyewitnesses;
and 3) they assume that the books were written and circulated to people that
had never met Jesus, who didn’t know anything about Him, and were 200 years
removed from Jesus. What evidence do you have to counter those assumptions? HTMLPDF

Dr. John Ankerberg.“What Can you Say About Jesus to Your
Non-Christian Friends? - Part 3”
Why is it we believe the four Gospels and other New Testament books were
written early; that is, during the lifetime of the Apostles, not 200 years
after Christ lived? How did archaeology show that the New Testament books
present accurate historical reports of what Jesus said and did, rather than
myths and legends? HTMLPDF

Dr. John Ankerberg.“What Can You Say to Your Non-Christian
Friends About Jesus? - Part 4”
Did Jesus ever claim to be God? Dr. John Ankerberg examines examples of Jesus’
claims to show that, not only was He was claiming to be God, but and His
listeners clearly understood what He was saying. HTMLPDF

Dr. John Ankerberg.“What Can You Say to Your Non-Christian
Friends About Jesus? - Part 5” How can we know for sure that Jesus claimed to
be God? What evidence did Jesus offer to prove His claim was true? Was His
character really unique? Can we really believe in His miracles? That’s the
topic that we want to consider this time HTMLPDF

Dr. John Ankerberg.“What Can You Say About Jesus to Your
Non-Christian Friends? - Part 6” When Jesus claimed to be God, what proof did
He offer that His claim was true? What evidence would lead a thinking person in
the 21st century to believe that Jesus really rose from the dead? HTMLPDF

In answer
to the question you couldn’t say that you believe God exists because the Bible
says so.

Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon.“The Bible—The Most Unique Book in the World,
Part One”
The Bible is not the product of human invention, nor does it contain a mixture
of truth and error. It does not require “enlightenment” to understand it
properly. Nor is the Bible an incomplete revelation of God. All those are
things the Bible is not. Over the next few [essays] the authors will give seven
points that are necessary for understanding what the Bible IS! HTMLPDF

Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon. “The Bible—The Most
Unique Book in the World—Part Two”
What does the Bible say about itself? What did Jesus say about the Bible? What
did the Apostles say about the Bible? What does God’s character say about the
Bible? HTMLPDF

Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon.“The Bible—The Most Unique Book in the World,
Part Three”
We are looking at characteristics that reveal the nature of the Bible. This
time, ways in which the Bible is unique, how to interpret the Bible, and what
Jesus thought of the Bible. HTMLPDF

Belief in the Bible as truth only comes after one believes
in God.

Not so.Former
skeptics, willing to apply the same standards of evidence as they would any
historical document, have accepted the validity of the Old and New Testaments.

Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon. “The Evidence for the
Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Part 1—Can it Persuade Skeptics?”

Among the religions of the world Christianity is
unique—particularly when it comes to evidence supporting its claims. The
authors give examples of skeptics who have changed their minds once they
carefully examined the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. HTMLPDF

Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon. “The Evidence for the
Resurrection of Jesus Christ—Part 2”

Could the evidence stand cross-examination in a modern court
of law? The authors cite a number of lawyers, including Simon Greenleaf
(considered “the greatest single authority on evidence…”), who say, “Yes!” HTMLPDF

Nor could you say that you believe because God answers
your prayers.

For God to answer prayer, you have to first believe that He
will.

James 1:2-8

2Consider it pure joy, my
brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, 3because you know
that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. 4Perseverance
must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking
anything. 5If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives
generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. 6But
when he asks, he must believe and not
doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the
wind. 7That man should not think he will receive anything from the
Lord; 8he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does.

circumstantial
evidence (indirect evidence) Evidence from which the judge or jury may infer the
existence of a fact in issue but which does not prove the existence of the
fact directly. Case law has described circumstantialevidence as evidence that is relevant (and, therefore, admissible)
but that has little probative value.

Dr. Greenleaf states, “The foundation of our religion is a
basis of fact--the fact of the birth, ministry, miracles, death, resurrection
by the Evangelists as having actually occurred, within their own personal
knowledge. Our religion, then, rests on the credit due to these witnesses. Are
they worthy of implicit belief, in the matters which they relate? This is the
question, in all human tribunals, in regard to persons testifying before them;
and we propose to test the veracity of these witnesses, by the same rules and
means which are there employed. The importance of the facts testified, and
their relations to the affairs of the soul, and the life to come, can make no
difference in the principles or the mode of weighing the evidence. It is still
the evidence of matters of fact, capable of being seen and known and related,
as well by one man as by another. And if the testimony of the Evangelist,
supposing it to be relevant and material to the issue in a question of property
or of personal right, between man and man, in a court of justice, ought to be
believed and have weight; then, upon the like principles, it ought to receive
our entire credit here. But if, on the other hand, we should be justified in
rejecting it, if there testified on oath, then, supposing our rules of evidence
to be sound, we may be excused if we hesitate elsewhere to give it credence.”

Dr. Norman Geisler.“Questions About Miracles—Part One”
What are miracles? Dr. Geisler begins a four-part series on miracles by
defining what he means by the word “miracle,” then answering the questions: Are
miracles possible? and Are Miracles Credible? PDF

Dr. Norman Geisler.“Questions About Miracles—Part Two”
As we continue a look at miracles, Dr. Geisler examines two more questions: Are
Miracles Scientific? And Are Miracles Historical? PDF

Dr. Norman Geisler.“Questions About Miracles—Part Four”
What is the difference between “miracles” and “magic”? What about psychics and
others who claim and display “supernatural” abilities? What does the Bible have
to say about such things? PDF

Dr. Norman Geisler.“Questions about Miracles—Part Five”
Dr. Geisler concludes the series about miracles by showing that biblical
miracles are superior, and that they are valuable. PDF

Here the
burden of proof is yours to show that such events really occurred.

Greenleaf: “But we may well suppose that in these respects
they were like the generality of their countrymen, until the contrary is shown
by an objector. it is always to be presumed that men are honest, and of sound
mind, and of the average and ordinary degree of intelligence. This is not the
judgment of mere charity; it is also the uniform presumption of the law of the
land; a presumption which is always allowed freely and fully to operate, until
the fact is shown to be otherwise, by the party who denies the applicability of
this presumption to the particular case in question. Whenever an objection is
raised in opposition to ordinary presumptions of law, or to the ordinary
experience of mankind, the burden of
proof is devolved on the objector, by the common and ordinary rules of
evidence, and of practice in courts. No lawyer is permitted to argue in
disparagement of the intelligence or integrity of a witness, against whom the
case itself afforded no particle of testimony. This is self afforded in
particle of testimony. This is sufficient for our purpose, in regard to these
witnesses. But more than this is evident, from the minuteness of their
narratives, and from their history.

“These copies of the Holy Scriptures having thus been in
familiar use in the churches, from the time when the text was committed to
writing; having been watched with vigilance by so many sects, opposed to each
other in doctrine, yet all appealing to these Scriptures for the correctness of
their faith; and having in all ages, down to this day, been respected as the
authoritative source of all ecclesiastical power and government, and submitted
to, and acted under in regard to so many claims of right, on the one hand, and
so many obligations of duty, on the other; it is quite erroneous to suppose
that the Christian is bound to offer any further proof of their genuineness or
authenticity. It is for the objector to
show them spurious; for on him, by the plainest rules of law, lies the burden
of proof.”

Greenleaf: “The title of the evangelists to full credit for
veracity would be readily conceded by the objector, if the facts they relate
were such as ordinarily occur in human experience, and on this circumstance an
argument is founded against their credibility. Miracles, say the objectors, are
impossible; and therefore the evangelists were either deceivers or deceived;
and in either case their narratives against the possibility of miracles, was
founded on the board and bold assumption that all things are governed by
immutable laws, or fixed modes of motion and relation, termed the laws of
nature, by which God himself is of necessity bound. This erroneous assumption
is the tortoise, on which stands the elephant which upholds his system of
atheism. He does not inform us who made these immutable laws, nor whence they
derive their binding force and irresistible operation. The argument supposes
that the creator of all things first made a code of laws, and then put out of
his own power to change them. The scheme of Mr. Hume is but another form of the
same error. He deduces the existence of such immutable laws from the uniform
course of human experience. This, he affirms, is our only guide in reasoning
concerning matters of fact; and whatever is contrary to human experience, he
pronounces incredible. Without stopping to examine the correctness of this
doctrine, as a fundamental principle in the law of evidence, it is sufficient in
this place to remark, that it contains this fallacy: it excludes all knowledge
derived by inference or deduction from facts, confining us to what we derive
from experience alone, and thus depriving us of any knowledge, or even rational
belief, or the existence or character of God. Nay more, it goes to prove that
successive generations of men can make no advancement in knowledge, but each
must begin de novo, and be limited to the results of his own experience.
But if we may infer, from what we see and know, that there is a Supreme Being,
by whom this world was created, we may certainly, and with equal reason,
believe him capable of works which we have never yet known him to
perform. We may fairly conclude that the power which was originally put forth
to create the world is still constantly and without ceasing exerted to sustain
it; and that the experienced connection between cause and effect is but the
uniform and constantly active operation of the finger of God. Whether this
uniformity of operation extends to things beyond the limits of our observation,
is a point we cannot certainly know. Its existence in all things that
ordinarily concern us may be supposed to be ordained as conducive to our
happiness; and if the belief in a revelation of peace and mercy from god is
conducive to the happiness of man, it is not irrational to suppose that he
would depart from his ordinary course of action, in order to give it such
attestations as should tend to secure that belief. “A miracle is improbable,
when we can perceive no sufficient cause, in reference to his creatures, why
the Deity should not vary his modes of operation; it ceases to be so, when such
cause is assigned.”

“...But the full discussion of the subject of miracles forms
no part of the present design. Their credibility has been fully established,
and the objections of skeptics most satisfactorily met and overthrown, by the
ablest writers of our own day, whose works are easily accessible. Thus much,
however, may here be remarked; that in almost every miracle related by the
evangelists, the facts, separately taken, were plain, intelligible, transpiring
in public, and about which no person of ordinary observation would be like to
mistake. Persons blind or cripple, who applied to Jesus for relief, were known
to have been crippled or blind for many years; they came to be cured; he spake
to them; they went away whole. Lazarus had been dead and buried four days;
Jesus called him to come forth from the grave; he immediately came forth, and
was seen alive for a long time afterwards. In every case of healing, the
previous condition of the sufferer was known to all witnessed the act of Jesus
in touching him, and heard his words. All these, separately considered, were
facts, plain and simple in their nature, easily seen and fully comprehended by
persons of common capacity and observation. If they were separately testified
to, by different witnesses of ordinary intelligence and integrity, in any court
of justice, the jury would be bound to believe them; and a verdict, rendered
contrary to the uncontradicted testimony of credible witnesses to any of these
plain facts, separately taken, would be liable to be set aside, as a verdict
against evidence. If one credible witness testified to the fact, that Bartimeus
was blind, according to the uniform course of administering justice, this fact
would be taken as satisfactorily proved. So also, if his subsequent restoration
to sight were the sole fact in question, this also would be deemed established,
by the like evidence. Nor would the rule of evidence be at all different, if
the fact to be proved were the declaration of Jesus, immediately preceding his
restoration to sight, that his faith had made him whole. In each of these
cases, each isolated fact was capable of being accurately observed, and
certainly known; and the evidence demands our assent, precisely as the like
evidence upon any other indifferent subject. The connection of the word or the
act of Jesus with the restoration of the blind, lame and dead, to sight, and
health, and life, as cause and effect, is a conclusion which our reason is
compelled to admit, from the uniformity of their concurrence, in such a
multitude of instances, as well as from the universal conviction of all,
whether friends or foes, who beheld the miracles which he wrought. Indeed, if
the truth of one of the miracles is satisfactorily established, our belief
cannot reasonably be withheld from them all. This is the issue proposed by Dr.
Paley, in regard to the evidence of the death of Jesus upon the cross, and his
subsequent resurrection, the truth of which he has established in an argument
incapable of refutation.”

Of course,
the miracle of the resurrection of Christ is a powerful testimony for the
existence of a God who raises the dead, but is it proof?

Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon. “Does the Evidence for the Resurrection
Offer Proof that Jesus Rose from the Dead?” HTMLPDF

What about
fulfilled prophecy in the Bible?We
would first need to show that the prophecy was written before the prophesied
event actually occurred.Even if it was,
then we’d have to show that it wasn’t just a lucky guess.

Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon and Dr. Walter Kaiser
take a look at Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah. They point out
that the evidence points squarely at Jesus as being the fulfillment of those
prophecies! HTML

Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon.“Incredible Prophecies: Do They Prove God
Exists? - Part 1”

In this first of a two part series, Drs. Ankerberg and
Weldon look at the statistical probability that any one man could fulfill all
the prophecies regarding the Messiah in the Old Testament. What studies have
been done, and what conclusions have been reached? HTMLPDF

Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon.“Incredible Prophecies: Do They Prove God
Exists? - Part 2”

In this article, we find two illustrations which point out
the absurdity of believing one man could possibly have fulfilled all the
prophecies about the Messiah—unless He was the Messiah! HTMLPDF

Then I read a book by Hal Lindsey called The Late Great
Planet Earth. It was very popular treatment of end time Bible predictions
along with events around the world that seemed to confirm that the end time and
Jesus’ return to the earth was very imminent. So I once again thought to myself
at the time, “It’s true! Christianity is true! And Jesus may return any day
now.”

Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon. “Why is it Wrong for Christians to Predict
When Christ Will Return to Earth?”
If the Bible is clear on anything, it is that no one knows the specific time of
Christ’s return—in fact, Jesus Himself said, “It is not for you to know….” But,
for some reason, a lot of Christians aren’t listening to Jesus! What effect has
that had on the Gospel message and the reputation of Jesus in this world?HTMLPDF

Oddly, Loftus
believed in Hal Lindsey rather than Jesus Christ and the Scriptures.To wit:

Muslims claim that you will go to hell if you don't
convert to Islam too! But you cannot be a Muslim and also a Christian. Both
religions offer some evidence to believe, but Christians think their faith has
more evidence on its behalf than Islam, and one billion Muslims think
otherwise. But according to both religions the other group is going to hell. So
choose wisely. The risk is the same because a lot is at stake.

John
14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way,
the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Mark 2:5-10

5When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the
paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”

6Now some teachers of the law were sitting
there, thinking to themselves, 7”Why does this fellow talk like
that? He's blaspheming! Who can
forgive sins but God alone?”

8Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that
this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, “Why
are you thinking these things? 9Which is easier: to say to the
paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and
walk'? 10But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . .

6I marvel that ye are so soon
removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another
gospel:

7Which is not another; but there
be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you
than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

1 John 4:1-6

1Dear
friends, do not believe every spirit,
but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false
prophets have gone out into the world. 2This is how you can
recognize the Spirit of God: Every
spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.
This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and
even now is already in the world.

4You,
dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in
you is greater than the one who is in the world. 5They are from
the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world
listens to them. 6We are
from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God
does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and
the spirit of falsehood.

Acts 4:8-12

8Then Peter, filled with the
Holy Spirit, said to them: “Rulers and elders of the people! 9If
we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a
cripple and are asked how he was healed, 10then know this, you and
all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom
you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before
you healed. 11He is
” 'the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the capstone. 12Salvation is found in no one else, for
there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”

Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon.“Is Christianity Alone Fully True and is
Jesus Christ Really the Only Way to God? - Part 2”

Back when the Westminster Confession of Faith was written,
it declared that the chief end of man was to glorify God and to enjoy Him
forever. At that time, few Westerners had any real doubts as to which God was
referred to. Today it is a different story. HTMLPDF

Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon.“Is Christianity Alone Fully True and Is
Jesus Christ Really the Only Way to God? - Part 3”

Who do so many speak in terms of being “blessed” or of being
given gifts when they don’t believe in God? Who gave them the gifts? Some who
call themselves atheists credit themselves, their own abilities. Others
grudgingly admit to an uncomfortable thought that there might be a god, a
higher power outside of themselves. This month the authors suggest that even
most who call themselves atheists cannot completely ignore the possibility of a
God of some sort. HTMLPDF

Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon.“Is Christianity Alone Fully True and is
Jesus Christ Really the Only Way to God? - Part 4”

Do all men—even those who claim to be atheists—have an “innate
knowledge of God”? The evidence seems to point that way. The authors cite
leading atheist, Jean-Paul Sartre, and the research of Don Richardson to show
that God is very much a part of human experience and consciousness. HTMLPDF

Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon.“Is Christianity Alone Fully True and is
Jesus Christ Really the Only Way to God? - Part 5”

If God exists and there is only one true God, then how do we
find Him? This month, the distillation approach: How are Christianity and the
God of the Bible different from every other religion and god in the world? How
can we account for this difference? HTMLPDF

Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon.“Is Christianity Alone Fully True and is
Jesus Christ Really the Only Way to God? - Part 6”

Is Christianity intolerant or narrow-minded for teaching
there is only one way to God? The authors say quite the contrary. In fact, it
is other religions that, while saying they are tolerant of all religions, are
completely intolerant of one—Christianity! Why is that the case? HTMLPDF

Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon.“Is Christianity Alone Fully True and is
Jesus Christ Really the Only Way to God? - Part 7”

When one examines all the attacks made against Christianity
for 2,000 years, guess what one finds? Not one is valid. Not one disproves
Christianity. If the God of the Bible has revealed Himself, and if He is the
only God, then we would expect to find convincing evidence. Not just some
evidence but superior evidence. And the authors say that is exactly what we do
find. HTMLPDF

Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon.“Is Christianity Alone Fully True and Is
Jesus Christ Really the Only Way to God? - Part 8”

As we near the end of this series, the authors point out two
compelling lines of evidence for the truth of Christianity: supernatural
biblical prophecy and the historically attested resurrection of Jesus. HTMLPDF

Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon.“Is Christianity Alone Fully True, and Is
Jesus Christ Really The Only Way to God? - Part 9”
When you remove Christ from Christianity there is no Christianity—because Jesus
is not a way, a truth, a life, but the way, the truth, and the life. Can the
same be said about any other religious leaders? HTMLPDF

Dr. John Ankerberg.“Solid
Evidence About Christ for a Skeptical World”
Is there any evidence that Jesus is who He claimed to be? During the course of
this series Dr. Ankerberg will examine some of those claims and the evidence
that backs them up. HTMLPDF

Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon. “The Christian
Faith—Why It’s True - Part 1”
The Christian faith was not the fabrication of man; it was not the invention of
the disciples or the Apostle Paul; nor is the Christian faith simply a result
of the cultural evolution of the Jewish people. Christianity is not a
deception. Drs. Ankerberg and Weldon begin a multiple part series examining
some of the evidence for the Christian faith. HTMLPDF

Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon. “The Christian
Faith—Why It’s True - Part 2”
When one examines the arguments and attacks made against Christianity for 2,000
years, not one is valid. Not one disproves Christianity. Even with the most
difficult problems, Christianity has the best answer to offer. Drs. Ankerberg
and Weldon explain. HTMLPDF

Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon. “Why Christianity?”
With all the religious claims in the world, each one suggesting they are “the
only way,” what is it about Christianity that makes it unique? Are there
reasons why you can and should believe the claims of Christianity above all
others? Drs. Ankerberg and Weldon explain. HTMLPDF

***

For more answers to Loftus’ questions from his book, click
to J.P. Holding’s hub page for his review of From Minister to Honest Doubter, “Why We’re Doubting John” at http://www.tektonics.org/lp/loftus01.html.See also A Biblical Responseto “What If I’m Wrong?” and A Biblical
Response to “Why Did Jesus Suffer?”

What drives me
the most nuts is when I work hard to consider carefully a person's arguments,
I look up information explain where I see fault in their arguments and then
explain my own position.

But then inevitably the skeptic merely dismisses any argument I give. No research
put into it just a simple, “Not good enough.”

Doubting John is a good
example. He showed his reasons for saying Paul believed in a spiritual
resurrection. I took it seriously and not only examined his passages but
showed evidence that countered his position including sources from experts.

So what does he do? Simply disregards any argument I've given considers it not
good enough and makes the assumption his is the higher argument even though
he didn't show any sources to back up his arguments.

12We have not
received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may
understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak,
not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit,
expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.[a]14The man without the Spirit
does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are
foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually
discerned.